Surely you jest. We DID have "this Homeland security stuff" during WWII.
Why is it so necessary to overrun the Bill of Rights now?
Please point out ways in which the Bill of Rights is being "overrun."
Im not saying that's happening,...yet.
But that's the problem: Everyone talks about the "threats to freedom" from the Patriot Act and Homeland Security, but no one gives anything approaching details about it. Historically, during time of war for this nation, these same sorts of laws were implemented. It's just that at that time people still considered "the government" to be a manifestation of the people's will. The 1960s hadn't happened yet, and this cult of hyper-individualism hadn't yet found its way into the cultural consciousness.
Back then, people thought we were all pulling together for a common cause: Defeating the enemy. Now, too many simply see the government as the biggest "threat."
But the potential is there in the Patriot Act and the HS bill.
The potential is there for abuse every time a government is instituted. But silly diatribes that make these sound like dictatorial decrees are just stupid, far more "evil, stupid, or insane" than anything that Pres. Bush has pushed.
The threat is NOT from our government. Imperfect as it is, it DOES belong to us, and as the events of Nov. 5 demonstrated, it is quite amenable to the will of the governed.
Meanwhile, fruitcakes like this "L. Neil Smith" character would seem to favor unfettered ability of terrorists, rapists and child molestors to ply their favorite hobbies. Just so long as we don't have "the government" involved.
You talk about the Bill of Rights, but you can't really say which of those Rights is being infringed. Well, I can refer to the REST of the Constitution as well, and I can tell you that in several places, the Federal government is charged to "provide for the common defense." To me, the Patriot Act, Homestead Security Act, etc., are absolutely in line with that obligation.
These things have been conceived and passed by the Legislative branch, after due deliberation--and there was a LOT of it. They have been signed into law by the Executive. And some of it has already passed Judicial muster.
Sounds like everything is open and aboveboard, and absolutely constitutional.
Still you have nitwits like this "Smith" cretin complaining and even threatening outright revolt.
I tell you this: If it were 60 years ago, this guy would've been under house arrest as a threat to national security. He has no IDEA how bad things can REALLY be, even in a free society, when we're at war.
L
I tell you this: If it were 60 years ago, this guy would've been under house arrest as a threat to national security. He has no IDEA how bad things can REALLY be, even in a free society, when we're at war.
We're not at war. We have no declaration of war. If we did, we could declare martial law, which I don't have a problem with. We can get out from under martial law when the war has been won. The current approach is a power grab. I don't care how you want to justify it, it's more power to Washington at our expense, at our loss.
The frustrating thing is that it doesn't have to be this way if we had some leaders with a decent pair between their legs. Everyone is so afraid to offend somebody. Sorry about the Japanese thing, but it was arguably necessary at the time. We fought to win. Here, we are fighting not to lose.
Do you have to clean the drool off the keyboard as you go? Or do you just wear a bib to contain the deposits of your salivating glee?